3-dimensional Versus 2-dimensional Laparoscopy of Ovarian Cyst (LOOC)

March 12, 2019 updated by: Taejong Song, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital

3-dimensional Versus 2-dimensional Laparoscopy Of Ovarian Cyst (LOOC): a Randomized Controlled Trial

Lack of depth perception and spatial orientation are drawbacks of laparoscopic surgery. The advent of the three-dimensional (3D) camera system enables surgeons to regain binocular vision. The aim of this study was to gain subjective and objective data to determine whether 3D systems are superior to two-dimensional (2D) systems in terms of surgical outcomes.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Elective laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy is established as the treatment of choice for benign ovarian cysts. The advantages of laparoscopic surgery over conventional open surgery are less pain, shorter recovery time, shorter hospital stay, and consequently faster return to normal activity as well as better cosmetic effects. However, laparoscopic surgery is more challenging compared with open surgery, partly because surgeons must operate in a three-dimensional (3D) space through a two-dimensional (2D) projection on a monitor, which results in loss of depth perception and consequently more cognitive workload on the surgeon. In traditional 2D laparoscopic procedures, the surgeon has to mentally transform and process the 2D image into a 3D image using motion parallax through movement of the laparoscope, relative position of instruments, and shading of light and dark. During the past 3 decades, 3D imaging systems have been introduced in and attempt to improve in-depth perception and spatial orientation during minimally invasive surgery. The anticipated advantages for the surgeon are greater accuracy and speed in manual skills, translating to decreased operative time, a reduced learning curve, and enhanced safety.

Nevertheless, studies, to date, examining the potential advantages and disadvantages of 3D versus 2D imaging systems have produced contradictory results. Moreover, there have been no studies exploring the advantage of 3D imaging system in patients undergoing laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy. The aim of this study was to gain subjective and objective data to determine whether 3D imaging systems in the treatment of ovarian cyst are superior to 2D systems in terms of surgical outcomes.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

46

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Jongno-gu
      • Seoul, Jongno-gu, Korea, Republic of, 03181
        • Kangbuk Samsung Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

19 years to 48 years (Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

Female

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • age between 19 and 48 years
  • American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASAPS) classification I-II
  • absence of pregnancy at the time of surgery.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • any suspicious finding of malignant ovarian diseases
  • any concomitant diseases requiring uterine or upper abdominal surgery
  • unavailability of the surgical recording equipment for laparoscopic procedure
  • post-menopausal status

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: 3D laparoscope
For laparoscopic camera system, a 10-mm ENDOEYE FLEX 3D Deflectable Videoscope (Olympus Corp., Germany) was used in the 3D group.
For laparoscopic camera system, a 10-mm ENDOEYE FLEX 3D Deflectable Videoscope (Olympus Corp., Germany) was used in the 3D group.
Experimental: 2D laparoscope
For laparoscopic camera system, a 10-mm 30º IDEAL EYES Laparoscope (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) camera was used in the 2D group.
For laparoscopic camera system, a 10-mm 30º IDEAL EYES Laparoscope (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) camera was used in the 2D group.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Operative blood loss
Time Frame: At the time of surgery
Operative blood loss was measured by the anesthesiologists after defining it as the difference between the total amount of suction and irrigation plus the difference between the total gauze weight before and after surgery.
At the time of surgery

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
physical demand
Time Frame: At the time of surgery
The physical demand was evaluated on a scale of 0 to 10 using the question of "How physically demanding was the task?" High score means high physical demand. Low score means low physical demand.
At the time of surgery
mental demand
Time Frame: At the time of surgery
The mental demand was evaluated on a scale of 0 to 10 using the question of "How mentally demanding was the task?" High score means high mental demand. Low score means low mental demand.
At the time of surgery
visually induced motion sickness (VIMS)
Time Frame: At the time of surgery
The vision-induced motion sickness (VIMS) was assess using the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ), in which higher score indicates worse sickness. The maximum and minimum score of SSQ are 48 and 0 points.
At the time of surgery

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

May 10, 2018

Primary Completion (Actual)

March 12, 2019

Study Completion (Actual)

March 12, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 27, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 27, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

March 5, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 14, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 12, 2019

Last Verified

March 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • KBSMC 2018-04-023

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Laparoscopy

Clinical Trials on 3D laparoscope

Search Similar Trials